Share this story

Further Reading

Carl Ferrer, the co-founder of Backpage, the notorious and now-shuttered site that once hosted a vast quantity of prostitution-related ads, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy and money laundering charges.

The CEO, in a federal plea agreement unsealed in federal court in Arizona on Thursday, admitted that during the 14 years of the site’s existence, "the great majority" of Backpage's allegedly hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue came from placing illegal ads for prostitution.

The deal was made public just three days after Backpage was seized, and seven men allegedly involved in creating and operating Backpage were indicted on prostitution and money laundering charges. Ferrer’s name did not appear in that indictment.

Further Reading

Ferrer agreed, in combined plea deals with both Texas and California authorities, where he faced outstanding charges, that he will shut down Backpage "throughout the world," will aid authorities in ongoing prosecutions of his co-conspirators, and will make all Backpage data available to authorities.

Backpage the company also pleaded guilty to human trafficking in Texas.

In exchange for his cooperation, Ferrer will serve a maximum of five years in each case, to be served concurrently.

"For far too long, Backpage.com existed as the dominant marketplace for illicit commercial sex, a place where sex traffickers frequently advertised children and adults alike," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. "But this illegality stops right now. Last Friday, the Department of Justice seized Backpage, and it can no longer be used by criminals to promote and facilitate human trafficking."

The two plea deals, which cover both Ferrer personally and Backpage.com LLC, were unsealed just a day after President Donald Trump enacted a law that targets Backpage and its ilk. The White House wrote Wednesday that the new law "makes it a Federal crime to own, manage, or operate a website with the intent to promote or facilitate prostitution."

Share this story

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

I can understand wanting as early an exit as possible from the US' criminal system, but throwing co-conspirators under the bus is always shitty. If they were all guilty why could the DOJ not seize things and go after all of them? I'm also seriously confused how the recent legislation passed in the US is compatible with their right to protected speech. The US was historically a bastion of protections for sites hosting users' content, so it is a bit of a shame to see them stoop even lower than Europe's siteblocking in this regard.

It was involved in 73 percent of all child trafficking cases reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

And it says this as though this supports their actions.

That's not how this works. These statements made in respect of, say, murder for hire, or drug deals, would be more valid - because without the transaction, the victim doesn't get murdered or the drugs don't get sold.

Sex trafficking doesn't work like this. The victims are already in the hands of the traffickers, these ads happen far after the fact of the trafficking itself. The trafficker may not be able to as easily find a john for the victim, but they also won't decide that because they can't advertise on Backpage, to let the victim go with a change of clothes and a college fund. The victim is in *no better a position*, except of course, now the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children won't get a report for that victim.

Effectively, the Center will get 73% less reports that could help victims. Bravo prosecutors.

I'm kind of amused that Ars/Conde Nast/Google/whoever is serving me ads for online dating sites on this page.

Yes, I too have seen that. Downloaded something for my son from the App store and the ads were serving up porn from time to time. I don't mind some ad-supported stuff but someone has dropped the ball on keeping them clean - at least games meant for young kids should have cleaner ads.

The US was historically a bastion of protections for sites hosting users' content, so it is a bit of a shame to see them stoop even lower than Europe's siteblocking in this regard.

Aren’t they also accused of hand-editing a number of ads before publishing? That would perhaps make them co-authors (not mere hosts of automatically-posted user content) and therefore co-conspirators if those ads were themselves illegal, wouldn’t it?

I can understand wanting as early an exit as possible from the US' criminal system, but throwing co-conspirators under the bus is always shitty. If they were all guilty why could the DOJ not seize things and go after all of them? I'm also seriously confused how the recent legislation passed in the US is compatible with their right to protected speech. The US was historically a bastion of protections for sites hosting users' content, so it is a bit of a shame to see them stoop even lower than Europe's siteblocking in this regard.

People often assume the amendments are immune from any form of regulation. They're not.

The US was historically a bastion of protections for sites hosting users' content, so it is a bit of a shame to see them stoop even lower than Europe's siteblocking in this regard.

Aren’t they also accused of hand-editing a number of ads before publishing? That would perhaps make them co-authors (not mere hosts of automatically-posted user content) and therefore co-conspirators if those ads were themselves illegal, wouldn’t it?

Depends on the interpretation? Moderators at Ars will remove things from posts in addition to removing or hiding posts. That doesn't automatically mean anything. In Backpage's situation, that may well be the case, or at least it will be easy to see it that way given their financial incentive to encourage posted ads. Will the details point to Backpage employees covering up illegal activity by edit or removing inappropriate content?

The US was historically a bastion of protections for sites hosting users' content, so it is a bit of a shame to see them stoop even lower than Europe's siteblocking in this regard.

Aren’t they also accused of hand-editing a number of ads before publishing? That would perhaps make them co-authors (not mere hosts of automatically-posted user content) and therefore co-conspirators if those ads were themselves illegal, wouldn’t it?

And thats one of the MANY reasons this prosecution is so outrageous. California tried (and lost) to prosecute them because they were given ads to post by third parties, They informed third parties that the ads violated terms of service and could not be posted. They then gave edits to the ads to make them "legal" The California prosecutor then attempted to arrest them for.........posting legal ads!!!!!! The new edited ads were NOT illegal, and as a publication, thats what your SUPPOSED TO DO. They received NO MONEY from prostitution nor did they launder any. They got money from ads, be it an ad to sell a bike or give a massage. The fact that some "escort" placed an ad for giving a massage then after the fact actually included sex acts isnt the publications fault and they are specifically shielded from such prosecution. Still, the other two defendants sold their share of backpage to the very person the government is now using to prosecute them. So even if they werent protected by law, which they are, they havent been the owners for awhile now.

I'm kind of amused that Ars/Conde Nast/Google/whoever is serving me ads for online dating sites on this page.

Yes, I too have seen that. Downloaded something for my son from the App store and the ads were serving up porn from time to time. I don't mind some ad-supported stuff but someone has dropped the ball on keeping them clean - at least gams meant for young kids should have cleaner ads.

I'm kind of amused that Ars/Conde Nast/Google/whoever is serving me ads for online dating sites on this page.

Yes, I too have seen that. Downloaded something for my son from the App store and the ads were serving up porn from time to time. I don't mind some ad-supported stuff but someone has dropped the ball on keeping them clean - at least gams meant for young kids should have cleaner ads.

Which App Store? It'd be quite interesting if it were Apple's, as they are supposed to have banned porn from their stores.

So a similar site pops up on some bulletproof server in a country that has no extradition.

It's illegal in Russia too, also China, and few other countries will take the risk of retaliation by Trump. A man who is reported to employ prostitutes is enforcing Protestant morality on the entire world wide web.

I wonder what form a legal version of personals would have to take with the current landscape to survive.

Of small ads in general, even eBay?

When I moved to a new flat in London, many years ago, I was looking for furniture in the small ads. Every week there was a variation on the theme of "36 inch chest, rosebud decorations, £5 " and a phone number. Once a code is agreed and disseminated, virtually anything can be used to facilitate prostitution.

I'm kind of amused that Ars/Conde Nast/Google/whoever is serving me ads for online dating sites on this page.

Yes, I too have seen that. Downloaded something for my son from the App store and the ads were serving up porn from time to time. I don't mind some ad-supported stuff but someone has dropped the ball on keeping them clean - at least gams meant for young kids should have cleaner ads.

Which App Store? It'd be quite interesting if it were Apple's, as they are supposed to have banned porn from their stores.

By App I mean the Apple Store. This was last August whwn I got him an iPad Pro. I forgot the app now but left a rather bad review to warn others.

I'm kind of amused that Ars/Conde Nast/Google/whoever is serving me ads for online dating sites on this page.

Yes, I too have seen that. Downloaded something for my son from the App store and the ads were serving up porn from time to time. I don't mind some ad-supported stuff but someone has dropped the ball on keeping them clean - at least gams meant for young kids should have cleaner ads.

It was involved in 73 percent of all child trafficking cases reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

And it says this as though this supports their actions.

That's not how this works. These statements made in respect of, say, murder for hire, or drug deals, would be more valid - because without the transaction, the victim doesn't get murdered or the drugs don't get sold.

Sex trafficking doesn't work like this. The victims are already in the hands of the traffickers, these ads happen far after the fact of the trafficking itself. The trafficker may not be able to as easily find a john for the victim, but they also won't decide that because they can't advertise on Backpage, to let the victim go with a change of clothes and a college fund. The victim is in *no better a position*, except of course, now the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children won't get a report for that victim.

Effectively, the Center will get 73% less reports that could help victims. Bravo prosecutors.

Yeah, but this way it looks like the government is actually doing something! All the messy work of actually preventing trafficking & helping victims takes, like, time & money, & hard work (& gets fewer headlines). Who wants to bother with that?

The problem here is that they might all be dirty, guilty criminals profiting of the backs of exploited sex workers.

But they might also not be, and because of the perverse incentives inherent in the US plea system all it takes is one involved person caving to threats of spending the rest of life in prison - even if the evidence or case is weak - to effectively send a number of potentially innocent people to prison (and themselves of course).

Carl Ferrer agreed to end Backpage, and help prosecution of his former co-workers

No honor among thieves?

P.S. The US plea system is build on a profoundly rotten foundation. How can anyone assume that you will get honesty in exchange for no prison time or no punishment? You're taking a criminal that was willing to break the law in who knows how many different (horrible) ways but you trust that they will not lie to save themselves. How could this go wrong?

It was involved in 73 percent of all child trafficking cases reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

And it says this as though this supports their actions.

That's not how this works. These statements made in respect of, say, murder for hire, or drug deals, would be more valid - because without the transaction, the victim doesn't get murdered or the drugs don't get sold.

Sex trafficking doesn't work like this. The victims are already in the hands of the traffickers, these ads happen far after the fact of the trafficking itself. The trafficker may not be able to as easily find a john for the victim, but they also won't decide that because they can't advertise on Backpage, to let the victim go with a change of clothes and a college fund. The victim is in *no better a position*, except of course, now the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children won't get a report for that victim.

Effectively, the Center will get 73% less reports that could help victims. Bravo prosecutors.

If you establish a market, making it easy to sell a good, then more of that good will be sold. In other words, make it hard to traffic in sex and fewer people will do so.

It was involved in 73 percent of all child trafficking cases reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

And it says this as though this supports their actions.

That's not how this works. These statements made in respect of, say, murder for hire, or drug deals, would be more valid - because without the transaction, the victim doesn't get murdered or the drugs don't get sold.

Sex trafficking doesn't work like this. The victims are already in the hands of the traffickers, these ads happen far after the fact of the trafficking itself. The trafficker may not be able to as easily find a john for the victim, but they also won't decide that because they can't advertise on Backpage, to let the victim go with a change of clothes and a college fund. The victim is in *no better a position*, except of course, now the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children won't get a report for that victim.

Effectively, the Center will get 73% less reports that could help victims. Bravo prosecutors.

If you establish a market, making it easy to sell a good, then more of that good will be sold. In other words, make it hard to traffic in sex and fewer people will do so.

Well in that case we should be stopping people from using roads to traffic people, stop them being able to fill up at petrol stations, stop them using hotel rooms, renting accommodation etc..

Stopping an advert site is not going to stop people being trafficked they will just find other ways to do what they want to do. It does however set a dangerous precedent in free speech. Law enforcement ought to be stopping these people being abused and trafficked on the first place.

If they had just closed that section down, when it became clear lawmakers were going to get involved, they probably could have walked away with all of the profits they had made. Backpage would have died, but they would be on a beach laughing about it. The difference between CEOs and inmates is knowing when to take the money and run.

Bearinf in mind that FOSTA/SESTA was drafted with the specific aim of criminalising and thereby shutting down Backpage what exactly was the point of the new legislation (other than to allow politicians yet more air time) when existing legislation if properly enforced with competent investigators appears to be entirely sufficient to achieve the same result

I can understand wanting as early an exit as possible from the US' criminal system, but throwing co-conspirators under the bus is always shitty. If they were all guilty why could the DOJ not seize things and go after all of them? I'm also seriously confused how the recent legislation passed in the US is compatible with their right to protected speech. The US was historically a bastion of protections for sites hosting users' content, so it is a bit of a shame to see them stoop even lower than Europe's siteblocking in this regard.

It was involved in 73 percent of all child trafficking cases reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

And it says this as though this supports their actions.

That's not how this works. These statements made in respect of, say, murder for hire, or drug deals, would be more valid - because without the transaction, the victim doesn't get murdered or the drugs don't get sold.

Sex trafficking doesn't work like this. The victims are already in the hands of the traffickers, these ads happen far after the fact of the trafficking itself. The trafficker may not be able to as easily find a john for the victim, but they also won't decide that because they can't advertise on Backpage, to let the victim go with a change of clothes and a college fund. The victim is in *no better a position*, except of course, now the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children won't get a report for that victim.

Effectively, the Center will get 73% less reports that could help victims. Bravo prosecutors.

This will be a blow to the market in general. Probably a significant one. If you reduce the money being made by these people then you may very well reduce future trafficking.

Are you really suggesting that the world should allow children to be openly sold on websites just so that the world might get a report of the sale?

I can understand wanting as early an exit as possible from the US' criminal system, but throwing co-conspirators under the bus is always shitty. If they were all guilty why could the DOJ not seize things and go after all of them? I'm also seriously confused how the recent legislation passed in the US is compatible with their right to protected speech. The US was historically a bastion of protections for sites hosting users' content, so it is a bit of a shame to see them stoop even lower than Europe's siteblocking in this regard.

People often assume the amendments are immune from any form of regulation. They're not.

This isn't untested precedent either.

Seriously. It's like when gun fetishists attack reasonable regulation of firearms with quips like "oh, would you support scare quote reasonable scare quote regulation of free speech?". And it's like, yeah, you mean like the laws against slander and libel, about false advertisement, about instigating a riot or other violence?

If they had just closed that section down, when it became clear lawmakers were going to get involved, they probably could have walked away with all of the profits they had made. Backpage would have died, but they would be on a beach laughing about it. The difference between CEOs and inmates is knowing when to take the money and run.

My understanding was tat this is exactly what they did a while ago. Its really strange to me as I thought they were effectively in the clear now.

If that's the case, how is it legal to prosecute them retroactively? It seems too obvious.

It was involved in 73 percent of all child trafficking cases reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

And it says this as though this supports their actions.

That's not how this works. These statements made in respect of, say, murder for hire, or drug deals, would be more valid - because without the transaction, the victim doesn't get murdered or the drugs don't get sold.

Sex trafficking doesn't work like this. The victims are already in the hands of the traffickers, these ads happen far after the fact of the trafficking itself. The trafficker may not be able to as easily find a john for the victim, but they also won't decide that because they can't advertise on Backpage, to let the victim go with a change of clothes and a college fund. The victim is in *no better a position*, except of course, now the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children won't get a report for that victim.

Effectively, the Center will get 73% less reports that could help victims. Bravo prosecutors.

This will be a blow to the market in general. Probably a significant one. If you reduce the money being made by these people then you may very well reduce future trafficking.

Are you really suggesting that the world should allow children to be openly sold on websites just so that the world might get a report of the sale?

Well....no. The suggestion is, when someone puts a ad in Craigs List or Village Voice or The New Times etc, and the ad is for a escort or a massage or a stripper for a bachelor party, then the person who places the ad engages in prostitution, its not the fault of the publication. And NOT arresting the pimp, not arresting the prostitute, not going after the traffickers but instead going after the publication, that placed LEGAL ads, does NOTHING to stop the problem . Sex trafficking was a problem long before Backpage. You havent reduced a dime of the money made by traffickers or prostitution rings. They just cant place anymore legal ads in Backpage, To claim this is some kind of massive blow is laughable. About as laughable as the illegal drug market being affected in any way by shutting down Silk Road. But at least that site was clearly offering illegal SERVICES as opposed to LEGAL ads,

The problem here is that they might all be dirty, guilty criminals profiting of the backs of exploited sex workers.

But they might also not be, and because of the perverse incentives inherent in the US plea system all it takes is one involved person caving to threats of spending the rest of life in prison - even if the evidence or case is weak - to effectively send a number of potentially innocent people to prison (and themselves of course).

This. Innocent people plead guilty all the time. And people (innocent or not) make deals to drag down all their friends/family/strangers (innocent or not) with them, to reduce their own sentence, ALL THE TIME.

Maybe they really are complete scumbags. Or maybe one guy just caved under pressure and figured serving 5 years is better than serving life. It happens every day.

It was involved in 73 percent of all child trafficking cases reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

And it says this as though this supports their actions.

That's not how this works. These statements made in respect of, say, murder for hire, or drug deals, would be more valid - because without the transaction, the victim doesn't get murdered or the drugs don't get sold.

Sex trafficking doesn't work like this. The victims are already in the hands of the traffickers, these ads happen far after the fact of the trafficking itself. The trafficker may not be able to as easily find a john for the victim, but they also won't decide that because they can't advertise on Backpage, to let the victim go with a change of clothes and a college fund. The victim is in *no better a position*, except of course, now the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children won't get a report for that victim.

Effectively, the Center will get 73% less reports that could help victims. Bravo prosecutors.

This will be a blow to the market in general. Probably a significant one. If you reduce the money being made by these people then you may very well reduce future trafficking.

Are you really suggesting that the world should allow children to be openly sold on websites just so that the world might get a report of the sale?

It is not a significant blow to the market. If you got rid of eBay there would still be hundreds of thousands of garage sales, estate auctions, flea markets, and newspaper ads for old junk going every year.

Bearinf in mind that FOSTA/SESTA was drafted with the specific aim of criminalising and thereby shutting down Backpage what exactly was the point of the new legislation (other than to allow politicians yet more air time) when existing legislation if properly enforced with competent investigators appears to be entirely sufficient to achieve the same result

So they don't need evidence of money laundering to go after them.This really isn't rocket science. Please buy a couple IQ points to save me the trouble of pointing out the obvious.

I'm kind of amused that Ars/Conde Nast/Google/whoever is serving me ads for online dating sites on this page.

I'd rather those, I keep getting served up a Belvedere ad for the last few months that makes reading the site on mobile impossible because it blocks the last half of the article...and I don't even drink.